[6/6] NEWS: "info" commands now list in ascending order

  gdb/ChangeLog:
2015-10-22  Pedro Alves  <palves@redhat.com>

	* NEWS: Mention that a few "info" commands now list the
	corresponding items in ascending order.
---
 gdb/NEWS | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
  

> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:59:04 +0100
> 
> gdb/ChangeLog:
> 2015-10-22  Pedro Alves  <palves@redhat.com>
> 
> 	* NEWS: Mention that a few "info" commands now list the
> 	corresponding items in ascending order.
> ---
>  gdb/NEWS | 4 ++++
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/gdb/NEWS b/gdb/NEWS
> index b2b1e99..e16e861 100644
> --- a/gdb/NEWS
> +++ b/gdb/NEWS
> @@ -24,6 +24,10 @@
>  
>  * GDB now supports displaced stepping on AArch64 GNU/Linux.
>  
> +* "info threads", "info inferiors", "info display", "info checkpoints"
> +  and "maint info program-spaces" now list the corresponding items in
> +  ascending order, for consistency with all other "info" commands.
             ^^
I'd suggest to add "alphabetic" where indicated.

Otherwise, this is fine, thanks.
  

On 10/22/2015 04:00 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
>> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 10:59:04 +0100
>>
>> gdb/ChangeLog:
>> 2015-10-22  Pedro Alves  <palves@redhat.com>
>>
>> 	* NEWS: Mention that a few "info" commands now list the
>> 	corresponding items in ascending order.
>> ---
>>  gdb/NEWS | 4 ++++
>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/gdb/NEWS b/gdb/NEWS
>> index b2b1e99..e16e861 100644
>> --- a/gdb/NEWS
>> +++ b/gdb/NEWS
>> @@ -24,6 +24,10 @@
>>  
>>  * GDB now supports displaced stepping on AArch64 GNU/Linux.
>>  
>> +* "info threads", "info inferiors", "info display", "info checkpoints"
>> +  and "maint info program-spaces" now list the corresponding items in
>> +  ascending order, for consistency with all other "info" commands.
>              ^^
> I'd suggest to add "alphabetic" where indicated.

That would sound very confusing to me, as we sort by e.g., thread
ID, not thread name, and alphabetic would suggest to me that we
now sort by "name" or whatever else looks like a name.

Would "ascending ID order" or "ascending numerical order"
instead be OK with you?

> 
> Otherwise, this is fine, thanks.
> 


Thanks,
Pedro Alves
  

> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 16:07:30 +0100
> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
> CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> > I'd suggest to add "alphabetic" where indicated.
> 
> That would sound very confusing to me, as we sort by e.g., thread
> ID, not thread name, and alphabetic would suggest to me that we
> now sort by "name" or whatever else looks like a name.
> 
> Would "ascending ID order" or "ascending numerical order"
> instead be OK with you?

Yes, of course.  The point is just "ascending" doesn't say enough, we
should say more about the order.  (I mistakenly thought it was
alphabetic.)

Thanks.